I just wonder why there isn't more of the really interesting varieties of Kryptonite, like the pink Kryptonite that turned Superman gay. Why is there such an overabundance of green when the ones with non-lethal effects are so much more fun?
The green is by far the most common. Earth has gotten only a single piece of most of the others, (and once Supes has it,it gets plopped right into the sun). Meanwhile, there are more than a few hunks of green floating around.
Green is the most useful, and not just as an anti-Superman weapon. Thus various agencies and groups will expend more effort to get their hands on a chunk before it's in a lead box and solar bound. It's also what those people who can head out to get some more tend to be looking for, meaning it has an actual supply besides what happens to hit Earth.
little scientist geek who would try to usurp God Himself!!!
God is clearly not much of a scientist. That whole tree-of-knowledge experiment was very poorly controlled, I don't know how He thought He'd get any decent data from it.
Jaguar: I think he's serious. But it's an amusing kind of serious. Can we keep him?
Lifewish: In all fairness, God might have any number of control and/or other experiment groups in other universes, after all, he'd have to make sure that we couldn't communicate with them. Especially if we're the control group.
So an omniscient god would be doing experiments basically because he wants to confirm his built-in database is accurate? That's the sort of god I'd have respect for.
Regarding self-doubt, You do not think that Skeptics/Atheist and thealike are somewhat overly arrogant in their proclamations?
With this I mean Truth with a Capital T seems to infest most forums and debate that these folks are around. The prime example is of course Paul Myers own blog. Paul does not only speak with a Capital T of Truth, but also rarely show any self-doubt about his claims.
I am not attacking you (nor anyone else), just asking here, You do not think that the crowed that are in contrast to the Fundies have started to show clear signs of similarities to their nemesis? The "Truth" is irrelevant ot the claims, of course, as Skeptics are the ones that generally, 99% of the time, are the correct and educated people in this, but that is not relevant to the claims that aare made, normally blindly.
You make a lot of vague, unsupported claims and comparisons. Care to support them? Otherwise it's just the same "u guys r the same as teh fundies!!1!!!" idiocy that we here, with the same vagueness and lack of evidence all the time.
The reason we have little reason to doubt evolution is because the evidence just keeps on piling up in its favor. With gods, there is still no evidence for their existence.
We have 99.999999% confidence. There's a huge difference between that and the arrogant, absolute certainty of fundies, who claim humility is a sin. The fact that you and others like you don't seem to understand that basic difference is exactly the problem: You seem to think that anything other than indecision and indifference is automatically wrong.
We rely on evidence. We're confident because our conclusions are solidly backed by evidence. The fundies don't care about evidence: Their egotism is the source of their unearned confidence.
I've gone out of my way in multiple posts at my own blog to point out that I'm not interested in Truth with a capital "T" but rather those claims which have the best evidence to back them up, which give me the best reasons to believe them.
I've yet to find a single piece of evidence for creationism or intelligent design that didn't require one to ignore another piece of evidence or was not based on a logical fallacy.
When people capable of reason speak about evolution, they're talking about something as real and proven as the necessity of oxygen for human metabolism, or the sun for the life of plants and they, understandably, speak with authority.
Now, I do believe in God, but I'm reasonable enough to realize that it's not a reasonable position. It's something of which I am convinced, but without evidence, and when I speak of it, I speak of it as being real to me, but as something that isn't gathered as evidence but experienced.
You make a lot of vague, unsupported claims and comparisons
Really, I thought I was pretty clear. Maybe you should visit the Blogs and forums that have the vocal Atheist and Skeptics and look at it with Open Eyes rather then your own prejudiced pre-determined worldview. Eh?
Or is that to scary? Paul Myers sound pretty loud and, oh what the word, Arrogant in his claims. Capital T in Truth does not only smell, but reeks in his blog.
We have 99.999999% confidence
Bronze, whatever confidence you have is rather irrelevant to the fact of claims, do you not think?
Maybe you did not understand, so I ask you again, Do you not think that when Atheist/Skeptics make claims, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, with with the same pious and certain arrogant way the Creationist crowd is, does it not seem a bit ironic that you sit there and point a finger at them?
CLAIMS, not EVIDENCE has been made by Atheiost "team" just as much as the Creationist, the point is, the Arrogance and ASSUMPTION of being "right" seem to be a bit to engrained...
Try be objective and have a look at Paul Myers or anyone elses Blog or page, look at it with open eyes, and answer me, You dont think its alot of similarities to the two groups now?
Akusai, I suggest you read and look at Paul Myers page and others, and then, read sagain with open un biased eyes and tell me, Do you not see the arrogane and the TRUTH they claim?
That YOU do not claim Capital T truth is rather irrelevant, I am talking about others, not you. And I made examples of some of the most vocal.
Can you not be unbiased gentlemen? Are you so focused on being "right" that you need to ignore the facts opf the world? Are you afraid of being wrong? Look with Open eyes, try not to think about Richard Dawkins or Paul Myers being on "your team", they claim two different points and alot of claims are WITHOUT any BASIS, it is CLAIMS and the assumption they are RIGHT.
And the sheep nod and agree, that is worrying. I seen Paul Myers been wrong several times, and none of the sheep point it out. For example he claimed that a Child molester and a pedophile was the same thing, a horrible misstake and very harmful to say, but Paul never corrected himself, nor did any of his followers say anything, they all AGREED with the false assertion he made.
Anonny git who needs to put some kind of name on himself: Really, I thought I was pretty clear. Maybe you should visit the Blogs and forums that have the vocal Atheist and Skeptics and look at it with Open Eyes rather then your own prejudiced pre-determined worldview. Eh?
Or is that to scary? Paul Myers sound pretty loud and, oh what the word, Arrogant in his claims. Capital T in Truth does not only smell, but reeks in his blog.
Someone seems to be doing a lot of projecting.
Bronze, whatever confidence you have is rather irrelevant to the fact of claims, do you not think?
Are you saying that it's wrong to bet according to probabilities? That if a hypothesis a 99.999999% chance of being correct, you shouldn't bet on it?
aybe you did not understand, so I ask you again, Do you not think that when Atheist/Skeptics make claims, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, with with the same pious and certain arrogant way the Creationist crowd is, does it not seem a bit ironic that you sit there and point a finger at them?
The difference is that atheists and skeptics like us are justified in our high confidence levels by logic and evidence. The Creationists have no justification for any of their claims. Of course, you're just going to plug your ears and close your eyes on that central point.
CLAIMS, not EVIDENCE has been made by Atheiost "team" just as much as the Creationist, the point is, the Arrogance and ASSUMPTION of being "right" seem to be a bit to engrained...
So, you're saying the fossils, ERV sequences, hierarchical distribution of similarities, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera don't exist? That all the experiments that could have disproved evolution if the results were different don't exist? Is that what you're seriously claiming?
Try be objective and have a look at Paul Myers or anyone elses Blog or page, look at it with open eyes, and answer me, You dont think its alot of similarities to the two groups now?
Translation: "Don't look deeper, just look at the superficial and use it to affirm your prejudices!"
You really have no idea what's going on beyond the surface of a few raised voices, do you? Given that you're complaining purely about style and arrogantly dismissing the substance, I'm not surprised.
That YOU do not claim Capital T truth is rather irrelevant, I am talking about others, not you. And I made examples of some of the most vocal.
Neither does PZ. You're lying from your view of absolute apathy: Because PZ gets passionate, he is Automatically Wrong in your twisted, gray worldview.
Can you not be unbiased gentlemen? Are you so focused on being "right" that you need to ignore the facts opf the world? Are you afraid of being wrong? Look with Open eyes, try not to think about Richard Dawkins or Paul Myers being on "your team", they claim two different points and alot of claims are WITHOUT any BASIS, it is CLAIMS and the assumption they are RIGHT.
Says the militant apathist who cares more about style than substance. If you bothered looking at the facts instead of petulantly whining about how they're presented, you'd change your tune. But you won't. That's why you're constantly avoiding the subject and whining about irrelevancies like style.
And the sheep nod and agree, that is worrying. I seen Paul Myers been wrong several times, and none of the sheep point it out. For example he claimed that a Child molester and a pedophile was the same thing, a horrible misstake and very harmful to say, but Paul never corrected himself, nor did any of his followers say anything, they all AGREED with the false assertion he made.
How about you provide a link? I seem to recall that happening much, much differently than you tell it. But let me guess: You don't have time to talk about "trivialities" like evidence, hence you will provide none for your assertion.
Skeptics, maybe you should open your eyes a bit?
So sayeth the guy who wants us to close our eyes to facts and concentrate exclusively on style.
Or is that to scary? Paul Myers sound pretty loud and, oh what the word, Arrogant in his claims. Capital T in Truth does not only smell, but reeks in his blog.
PZ doesn't sugar-coat things, I agree. He's too strident for a lot of people. And yet, I've never seen anything from him which says he wouldn't change his mind given new evidence.
Again, you throw out the accusation, but you fail to back it up with anything specific. "Look at his blog, it's all capital-T Truth," you say, but this is the second post where you haven't offered even a single quote or link to support that claim. I counter with the equally-valid "look at his blog, it's all skeptical and scientific, with the basic underlying assumption of science, that all knowledge is tentative." As long as we're making completely unsupported, vague generalizations, then mine are as good as yours.
...And, actually, mine are better. Because I can Google, and after a minute or two I found this quote: "Brains are not reliable; they've been shaped by forces which, as has been clearly said, do not value Truth with a capital T. Scientists are all skeptics who do not trust their perceptions at all; we design experiments to challenge our assumptions, we measure everything multiple times in multiple ways, we get input from many people, we put our ideas out in public for criticism, we repeat experiments and observations over and over. We demand repeated and repeatable confirmation before we accept a conclusion, because our minds are not reliable."
And while this quote comes from Stephen Jay Gould, PZ sure cites it approvingly: "Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."
Ball's in your court.
Do you not think that when Atheist/Skeptics make claims, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, with with the same pious and certain arrogant way the Creationist crowd is, does it not seem a bit ironic that you sit there and point a finger at them?
No. First, atheism entails no claims; it is a response to a position, it is the statement that one is unconvinced by the claims for the existence of gods. Skepticism is similar, in that it is a method of rigorous doubt and application of critical thinking to positive claims. Our whole schtick is a lack of certainty--and, in fact, a recognition that there is no such thing as absolute certainty, especially not of the kind promoted by the religious and otherwise mystical. While there may be individual atheists or individual skeptics who make such irrationally-certain claims--there are some, no doubt--that's not something endemic or inherent to the atheist or skeptic positions.
Scientists make claims, sure, but the big thing separating science from religion and pseudoscience is that scientific claims are, by necessity and nature, backed up by evidence--and stated with the caveat that they may change if future evidence requires it. Religion and pseudoscience, on the other hand, make claims of absolute certainty based on faith instead of evidence, and do not change with new evidence or observations.
The best you've been able to present for your side seems to be a matter of semantics, not a "claim" in any sense of the word, and you still present it without quotes or links so we can examine it. Once again, specific examples or GTFO.
Projection? So now it is okay to refer to that filthy "Nazi Scummbag Freud"?
Weird, If I use the father of modern psychology and reference him, he is a "nazi douchbag" (he was Austrian by the way), but if you say something...... Weird.. Just Weird...
Are you saying that it's wrong to bet according to probabilities? That if a hypothesis a 99.999999% chance of being correct, you shouldn't bet on it?
Once again no, I pointed out that IT IS IRRELEVANT if you do not supply evidence.
And if you read PAUL MYERS BLOG and others, you will note that there is ALOT of assumtions of ALOT of various things which he speaks "Truth" of.
Pedophiles are Child Molestors is a brilliant example which I saw a couple of months ago.
Also, is that aside about his nationality supposed to be some sort of counter against accusations of Nazism? Because I can think of at least one Austrian who very definitely was a Nazi... Can you guess who I'm thinking of?
(Disclaimer: I neither know nor care about Freud's politics. His "psychology" is bad enough.)
Projection? So now it is okay to refer to that filthy "Nazi Scummbag Freud"?
Weird, If I use the father of modern psychology and reference him, he is a "nazi douchbag" (he was Austrian by the way), but if you say something...... Weird.. Just Weird...
Get off the hallucinogens, pal. Drugs are not a gateway to higher understanding, no matter how much your postmodernist hippie commune says so.
You have absolutely no idea what's going on. The reason I pissed on your earlier efforts at psychobabble was because it was a blatantly transparent attempt at changing the subject.
The reason I'm calling you out on projection is because you're guilty of all the wrongdoing you baselessly accuse PZ of doing.
Once again no, I pointed out that IT IS IRRELEVANT if you do not supply evidence.
Translation: "ERV's don't exist because I do not wish to see them! Fossils do not exist! Dendrochronology does not exist!"
This accusation is rather rich coming from someone who's terrified to provide links to back his absurd claims.
And if you read PAUL MYERS BLOG and others, you will note that there is ALOT of assumtions of ALOT of various things which he speaks "Truth" of.
Translation: "I'm going to be deliberately vague in my accusations and never ever provide evidence in the form of a hotlink! Perceived style is infinitely more important than substance."
This is also rather ironic, since I seem to recall you using a lot of random capitalization.
Pedophiles are Child Molestors is a brilliant example which I saw a couple of months ago.
Which is why you're too terrified to provide a single, solitary link. Modern technology is amazing: I can smell the urine through my laptop's speakers.
You know, it's rather funny the way Gabe is obsessed with me. Apparently my earlier jokes about him are actually true: He bases his entire worldview on me.
"Bronze Dog doesn't know X, therefore my crazy unevidenced hypotheses about X are true!"
That's why he used so many arguments from ignorance: He really and truly believes that whatever I think must by definition be false, therefore by disagreeing with me, he is Automatically Right.
You know, like his subject changes on Wikipedia (which I didn't use as an authority).
And now, because I say evidence exists and that it matters, he says it doesn't. Because, as we've all established, Bronze Dog is Automatically Wrong, therefore Gabe is Automatically Right.
Irony at its best. I point out obvious fact (which you can confirm by a simple google search) but you claim its not true or deny it and demand that I am suppose to provide "evidence" that it X is even stated.
And you making all kinds of claims with NO evidence at all, denying facts of the world given by someone who knows the world, and yet, once again, I am wrong and need to get evidence to p`rove YOU wrong.... Wow, I wonder if there is any position you can take versus Bronze that does not demand "evidence" whatever for or against, Bronze on the other hand, can claim anything without any basis.
"Pedophiles are wretched people who abuse the helpless, and they get no sympathy from me. However, they are still people — sick people, damaged people, often abused people, sometimes psychopathic people. They have to be treated with due process and concern — we want to end the behavior, not the individual."
Funny enough, it seems that Paul Myers have EDITED this version, earlier he said Pedophiles and Child Molestors. Not anymore, maybe he saw his "mistake"? He certainly did not admit it, just silenty changed it... Strange strange.
Earlier comments debating this has also been removed it seems.
I guess you where right Bronze Dog, because Paul Myers removed what he said, he no longer said it, and anyone seeing it was just "dilusioned".
Right? Funny enough, even you pointed out that You remembered it, did you not?
Is it worth pointing out even with the edit, he claims Pedophiles are "wretcjed pèople", which is weird, as a Pedophile has done nothing nor harm anyone.
CHILD MOLESTORS on the other hand do, as they purse their lust. Pedophiles may be anyone from your grandma sitting in a chair never touched anyone to your father happening to "like" younger girls but, as it is illegal, never done annything about it.
But, as you say Bronze, Paul Myers is always right, lets bow now.
Oh, and Gabe, to put your trolling in a larger perspective: You've been stalling about answering basic questions about race since August. Do you ever get tired of running and waffling?
Back on the topic of editing: Trust me, Gabe, we don't trust your drug-addled memory of anything. You can't even comprehend and remember my position on anything over the course of hours. Pardon us if we're skeptical about your ability to accurately remember stuff from months ago.
I was just reading an article at your favourite "news and knowledge" stand, Wikipedia about this Eurofighter.
In the comment sections there is alot of anti-European sentiment I must say, and it is hard for me to not be biased, I mean, we know the F22 is the best, right? We rule and all that.
But all the real technical info I got show the damn Eurofighter to be an impressive piece of machine equal or better (in some senses) then our own F22.. Anyone know anything about this? There is lots of Anti-Americanism and eurotrash talks so I cant tell. Interesting stuff, personally I dont hold airplanes very high as with all the bombs and stuff we use now, war is horrible, not that any of you kids know about it, but no doubt someone here know about Aircraft?
Wow, Bronze, lets put oçit out straight then, Do you agree with Paul Myers that Pedophelia is equal to Child Molestors?
The QUOTE ABOVE I GAVE shows him saying that PEDOPHILES, the attraction to youth/children, is the same as a MOLESTOR: -> Pedophiles are wretched people who abuse the helpless..
I was just reading an article at your favourite "news and knowledge" stand, Wikipedia about this Eurofighter.
That's a lie. Wikipedia isn't anywhere near my favorite. I rarely look at it. Your World of Warcraft buddies from your postmodernist hippie commune made up that lie. We've been over this.
In the comment sections there is alot of anti-European sentiment I must say, and it is hard for me to not be biased, I mean, we know the F22 is the best, right? We rule and all that.
What do I care? Wikipedia has a lot of trolls and the best articles are those that provide good citations of good evidence. Here's a hint, Gabe: If there are a lot of [citation needed] tags in the article, it's a poor article.
But all the real technical info I got show the damn Eurofighter to be an impressive piece of machine equal or better (in some senses) then our own F22.. Anyone know anything about this? There is lots of Anti-Americanism and eurotrash talks so I cant tell. Interesting stuff, personally I dont hold airplanes very high as with all the bombs and stuff we use now, war is horrible, not that any of you kids know about it, but no doubt someone here know about Aircraft?
Sooooo... Why exactly did you change the subject to this triviality?
Oh well. Asking you to stick to a subject is like asking rocks to fall up. The correct thing to do, Gabe, is to look at the actual specs of the aircraft and base your conclusion on their actual, physical capabilities, instead of worshiping the irrelevant, nationalistic nonsense posted to Wikipedia comments.
I really don't understand your obsession with Wikipedia. I suggest you stop going to it if you can't look at the objective data that the good articles are supposed to cite.
Bronze, You are the one referencing Wikipedia, therefore assumed you read it alot so I referenced it for you.
No, MY knowledge of the Eurofighter comes from THE TECHNICAL KNOLWEDGE OF THE AIRPLANE, not Wikipedia.
I pointed to the heated debate people had over it, as I was unaware of the nationalistic bullshit that was going on.
I asked if anyone HERE has knowledge about the planes, possible flown one or both of them, and know. You know, I travelled the world, excellent to ask ME about a nation I lived in and its culture, the same thing with Airplanes, if you know the details of a plane and flown it, you know how it is compared to another one, if you flown that too.
So you disagree with Paul Myers.. Funny, I didn't see you say anything at his blog (and you didn't know about the article apparently).
So when Paul says anything wrong, you ignore it and pretend its okay? It is funny, when these people say something you agree with, you raise it to heaven, if you dont, you pretend it was never said... Or you gona say you dont have "time" for that type of thing, only writing on your own blog, right? Going to another blog makes it possible for others to disagree with you. I get it.
Bronze, You are the one referencing Wikipedia, therefore assumed you read it alot so I referenced it for you.
1. Liar. You're the one who's constantly whining about Wikipedia. You sound like you're married to it.
2. So, if a person links to ONE seemingly good Wikipedia article summarizing a scientific study, you conclude that they obsessively read it everyday? Someone here mistakes television stereotypes for reality.
3. I've told you repeatedly that I don't read Wikipedia very often. But because some comment section on Wikipedia says otherwise, you refuse to believe that.
So when Paul says anything wrong, you ignore it and pretend its okay? It is funny, when these people say something you agree with, you raise it to heaven, if you dont, you pretend it was never said... Or you gona say you dont have "time" for that type of thing, only writing on your own blog, right? Going to another blog makes it possible for others to disagree with you. I get it.
Did it ever occur to you that I don't need to spend every moment of every day obsessing over what PZ says? It's funny how you observe one instance of a behavior and extrapolate all sorts of insanity from it.
Here's a counter-example, by the way. Now you're going to say because I criticized him once I'm obsessed with him and obviously plan my day around his blog. Because you're only capable of understanding false dichotomies.
You do realize that some people can leave some battles to other people. I don't feel the need to personally take on every mistake.
Of course, you're not the sort to bother to understand why I believe anything. You're more interested in whining about irrelevancies.
Of course, for anyone who wasn't around for Gabe's earliest inanities, he argued that because Wikipedia is Automatically Wrong Because Only Dorks Read It, obviously all the statistical analysis performed by the Human Genome Project are null and void, even if they're recorded elsewhere: Wikipedia's wrongness infects scientific papers from a distance.
Gabe, instead of throwing up yet more smokescreen digressions how about you answer the very basic question you have been ducking for months:
Who do you mean when you say white?
If that's too hard for you, we can try to continue from what we know thus far. You have already made it clear that you do not include Iberians as white, so how about Italians?
I don't even know what Gabe's chain of logic is, anymore:
PZ makes a bone-headed mistake about pedophiles vs. child molesters, therefore evolution doesn't exist, therefore stay-at-home moms are all exactly like Peggy Bundy because Television Says So, therefore statistics is a Zionist conspiracy to suppress belief in unevidenced unicorns, therefore race is a metaphysical thing, therefore genetics is bunk because Stalin told the Soviet dictionaries to print so.
Gabe, here's a very simple concept: You're a sucker for the fallacy of composition, and based on your belief in it, you presume without evidence that I believe in it:
I cite ONE Wikipedia article that I think is reasonably good. Therefore, you presume (without evidence) that I believe all Wikipedia articles are infallible.
Of course, you decide to perform that fallacy instead of say, pay attention to the fact that I was talking about the Human Genome Project. So, in your obsession with changing the subject, you start whining about Wikipedia, even though the subject was the genetic data gathered by a group of scientists. You also change the subject to me, as if that data magically disappears because I skimmed a piece of a Wikipedia article, as if you believe Wikipedia defines reality: Reality is whatever Wikipedia doesn't say it is.
And you never stopped to consider that I have standards independent of Wikipedia which I use to evaluate all sources of information.
On the Wikipedia irrelevancy, I'm cheering myself up by imagining what's going on at Gabe's computer:
He's just pounding his F5 key into submission to read the absolute latest comments by the postmodern nationalist chunk of Wikipedia's trolls about some fighter jet (as if nationality magically transforms test flight data), sitting on the edge of his seat, breathing hard, covered in sweat as he asks for my take on which jingoist faction is right.
And he's calling me obsessed because I'm not interested enough to see for myself where the article's writer(s) got the planes' specifications.
Bronze Dog, just admit you are wrong and know less. I Travelled the world, I seen things you could only dream of and will never see.
Is it just jealolusy or stupidity? Why deny the fact of my knowledge?
I pointed out how wrong you are, PER CAPITA INCOME IS IRRELEVANT to the fact of a Nations People living in a good society or not. But you do not understand, you never travelled, you never SEEN different nations and cultures, you do not understand, you watch some stallone movie and think its real.
Bronze, just educate yourself okay, it is important if you want intelligence. Now listen, I make one simple example for you, a really easy one that even you understand: A Nation Per Capita Income have 150 Billion Dollar.
According to you, that means they are the best and most prosperous in the world. NO, because you know nothing about it, it turns out that our fictional example has to pay 99% of that to buy a piece opf loaf and the rest goes to rent....
UNDERSTAND?
Of course not. Money is not relevant if you do not know the system you live in and the cost of that life, to say X has Y amount of money therefore they live better or worse then Me" is incredible stupid. It could turn out that the money "needed" for something that You consider important (say education) is not needed as Education is free and the best the planet ever seen, at the same time they may live Safer and more cultural superior lives to us americans.
You need ALL THE DATA to be able to get the point. You checking hte "stats" for X nation means nothing, you may get a general idea if it is very poor, but culture and other aspècts are highly important especially if you look on AVERAGE as there is huge difference ebtween nations with equal per capita income because of different cultures and systems.
There is a REASON we that are older are more intelligent Bronze, WE SEEN MORE and DONE MORE in our lifes and we are not afraid to question ourself, as you are. Maybe you grow up in a couple of years, I hope so, but look yourself in a mirror Now, and Try.
Bronze Dog, just admit you are wrong and know less. I Travelled the world, I seen things you could only dream of and will never see.
You're really being stupid about this. This isn't about you against me, this is about you against objective scientific data. This is about you claiming to be superior to all scientists because you gathered some sloppy observations.
Is it just jealolusy or stupidity? Why deny the fact of my knowledge?
You still don't understand my position on the issue.
Which is better?: Someone who gathers observations in a lazy manner, or someone who gathers objective data? Every time, you say that your sloppy postmodernist hippie method is superior to the work of scientists.
I am utterly irrelevant to the argument, so I would appreciate you don't transparently change the subject, again.
So please, explain to me why your lazy, hazy method is superior to objective, scientific data.
According to you, that means they are the best and most prosperous in the world.
Liar. It's just one means of measuring it. Oh, and you obviously flunked high school economics. PCI accounts for inflation: If they have to spend 1,000,000 widget bucks for a loaf of bread, that means that their PCI is abysmally low because they have abysmally low buying power in terms of whichever unit you're measuring PCI in (usually in current US dollars).
I don't feel the need to quote the rest, since you're obviously making shit up in a desperate effort to save face.
"There is a REASON we that are older are more intelligent..."
Contrast.
"...just educate yourself okay, it is important if you want intelligence. Now listen, I make one simple example for you, a really easy one that even you understand: A Nation Per Capita Income have 150 Billion Dollar."
How old are you? That reads like it was written in crayon.
Hello. My name is Gabriel and I am a racist evangelist of jingoistic douchebaggery. As I write this I am 6 years old and my favorite color is white. Heil Hitler!
Gabe's flunked economics translated: The hyperinflation of one podunk nation, for example, changes the value of Year 2000 US dollars. Or sends tachyon waves that devalue 1980's US dollars.
So, where exactly do the villains get all that kryptonite? Do they have dollar store specials on it or something?
52 comments:
Why, Honest Achmed's House of Kryptonite, of course.
Recycling: If anyone but Superman gets their hands on it, it gets kept.
If it's kept by anyone but Batman, it gets stolen.
I just wonder why there isn't more of the really interesting varieties of Kryptonite, like the pink Kryptonite that turned Superman gay. Why is there such an overabundance of green when the ones with non-lethal effects are so much more fun?
A couple of reasons:
The green is by far the most common. Earth has gotten only a single piece of most of the others, (and once Supes has it,it gets plopped right into the sun). Meanwhile, there are more than a few hunks of green floating around.
Green is the most useful, and not just as an anti-Superman weapon. Thus various agencies and groups will expend more effort to get their hands on a chunk before it's in a lead box and solar bound. It's also what those people who can head out to get some more tend to be looking for, meaning it has an actual supply besides what happens to hit Earth.
Now if only there were some version of kryptonite that worked on comment trolls...
Yeah that upstart Copernicus, who does he think he is challenging the majority of the human race with his unpopular heliocentric theory?
Argument ad populum is the entirety of your argument? Are you serious or is this a parody?
little scientist geek who would try to usurp God Himself!!!
God is clearly not much of a scientist. That whole tree-of-knowledge experiment was very poorly controlled, I don't know how He thought He'd get any decent data from it.
Jaguar: I think he's serious. But it's an amusing kind of serious. Can we keep him?
!1!GOATS ON FIRE!1!
Lifewish:
In all fairness, God might have any number of control and/or other experiment groups in other universes, after all, he'd have to make sure that we couldn't communicate with them. Especially if we're the control group.
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20090706
So an omniscient god would be doing experiments basically because he wants to confirm his built-in database is accurate? That's the sort of god I'd have respect for.
Self-doubt is a sign of humility in my book. Would be much better than the typical arrogant fare you get with deities.
Regarding self-doubt, You do not think that Skeptics/Atheist and thealike are somewhat overly arrogant in their proclamations?
With this I mean Truth with a Capital T seems to infest most forums and debate that these folks are around. The prime example is of course Paul Myers own blog. Paul does not only speak with a Capital T of Truth, but also rarely show any self-doubt about his claims.
I am not attacking you (nor anyone else), just asking here, You do not think that the crowed that are in contrast to the Fundies have started to show clear signs of similarities to their nemesis? The "Truth" is irrelevant ot the claims, of course, as Skeptics are the ones that generally, 99% of the time, are the correct and educated people in this, but that is not relevant to the claims that aare made, normally blindly.
Do you not agree?
You make a lot of vague, unsupported claims and comparisons. Care to support them? Otherwise it's just the same "u guys r the same as teh fundies!!1!!!" idiocy that we here, with the same vagueness and lack of evidence all the time.
Representative examples, or GTFO.
The reason we have little reason to doubt evolution is because the evidence just keeps on piling up in its favor. With gods, there is still no evidence for their existence.
We have 99.999999% confidence. There's a huge difference between that and the arrogant, absolute certainty of fundies, who claim humility is a sin. The fact that you and others like you don't seem to understand that basic difference is exactly the problem: You seem to think that anything other than indecision and indifference is automatically wrong.
We rely on evidence. We're confident because our conclusions are solidly backed by evidence. The fundies don't care about evidence: Their egotism is the source of their unearned confidence.
I've gone out of my way in multiple posts at my own blog to point out that I'm not interested in Truth with a capital "T" but rather those claims which have the best evidence to back them up, which give me the best reasons to believe them.
So no, I don't know what you're talking about.
I've yet to find a single piece of evidence for creationism or intelligent design that didn't require one to ignore another piece of evidence or was not based on a logical fallacy.
When people capable of reason speak about evolution, they're talking about something as real and proven as the necessity of oxygen for human metabolism, or the sun for the life of plants and they, understandably, speak with authority.
Now, I do believe in God, but I'm reasonable enough to realize that it's not a reasonable position. It's something of which I am convinced, but without evidence, and when I speak of it, I speak of it as being real to me, but as something that isn't gathered as evidence but experienced.
Wow, alot of denial here I see. Lets see now.....
You make a lot of vague, unsupported claims and comparisons
Really, I thought I was pretty clear. Maybe you should visit the Blogs and forums that have the vocal Atheist and Skeptics and look at it with Open Eyes rather then your own prejudiced pre-determined worldview. Eh?
Or is that to scary? Paul Myers sound pretty loud and, oh what the word, Arrogant in his claims. Capital T in Truth does not only smell, but reeks in his blog.
We have 99.999999% confidence
Bronze, whatever confidence you have is rather irrelevant to the fact of claims, do you not think?
Maybe you did not understand, so I ask you again, Do you not think that when Atheist/Skeptics make claims, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, with with the same pious and certain arrogant way the Creationist crowd is, does it not seem a bit ironic that you sit there and point a finger at them?
CLAIMS, not EVIDENCE has been made by Atheiost "team" just as much as the Creationist, the point is, the Arrogance and ASSUMPTION of being "right" seem to be a bit to engrained...
Try be objective and have a look at Paul Myers or anyone elses Blog or page, look at it with open eyes, and answer me, You dont think its alot of similarities to the two groups now?
Akusai, I suggest you read and look at Paul Myers page and others, and then, read sagain with open un biased eyes and tell me, Do you not see the arrogane and the TRUTH they claim?
That YOU do not claim Capital T truth is rather irrelevant, I am talking about others, not you. And I made examples of some of the most vocal.
Can you not be unbiased gentlemen? Are you so focused on being "right" that you need to ignore the facts opf the world? Are you afraid of being wrong? Look with Open eyes, try not to think about Richard Dawkins or Paul Myers being on "your team", they claim two different points and alot of claims are WITHOUT any BASIS, it is CLAIMS and the assumption they are RIGHT.
And the sheep nod and agree, that is worrying. I seen Paul Myers been wrong several times, and none of the sheep point it out. For example he claimed that a Child molester and a pedophile was the same thing, a horrible misstake and very harmful to say, but Paul never corrected himself, nor did any of his followers say anything, they all AGREED with the false assertion he made.
Skeptics, maybe you should open your eyes a bit?
Anonny git who needs to put some kind of name on himself: Really, I thought I was pretty clear. Maybe you should visit the Blogs and forums that have the vocal Atheist and Skeptics and look at it with Open Eyes rather then your own prejudiced pre-determined worldview. Eh?
Or is that to scary? Paul Myers sound pretty loud and, oh what the word, Arrogant in his claims. Capital T in Truth does not only smell, but reeks in his blog.
Someone seems to be doing a lot of projecting.
Bronze, whatever confidence you have is rather irrelevant to the fact of claims, do you not think?
Are you saying that it's wrong to bet according to probabilities? That if a hypothesis a 99.999999% chance of being correct, you shouldn't bet on it?
aybe you did not understand, so I ask you again, Do you not think that when Atheist/Skeptics make claims, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, with with the same pious and certain arrogant way the Creationist crowd is, does it not seem a bit ironic that you sit there and point a finger at them?
The difference is that atheists and skeptics like us are justified in our high confidence levels by logic and evidence. The Creationists have no justification for any of their claims. Of course, you're just going to plug your ears and close your eyes on that central point.
CLAIMS, not EVIDENCE has been made by Atheiost "team" just as much as the Creationist, the point is, the Arrogance and ASSUMPTION of being "right" seem to be a bit to engrained...
So, you're saying the fossils, ERV sequences, hierarchical distribution of similarities, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera don't exist? That all the experiments that could have disproved evolution if the results were different don't exist? Is that what you're seriously claiming?
Try be objective and have a look at Paul Myers or anyone elses Blog or page, look at it with open eyes, and answer me, You dont think its alot of similarities to the two groups now?
Translation: "Don't look deeper, just look at the superficial and use it to affirm your prejudices!"
You really have no idea what's going on beyond the surface of a few raised voices, do you? Given that you're complaining purely about style and arrogantly dismissing the substance, I'm not surprised.
That YOU do not claim Capital T truth is rather irrelevant, I am talking about others, not you. And I made examples of some of the most vocal.
Neither does PZ. You're lying from your view of absolute apathy: Because PZ gets passionate, he is Automatically Wrong in your twisted, gray worldview.
Can you not be unbiased gentlemen? Are you so focused on being "right" that you need to ignore the facts opf the world? Are you afraid of being wrong? Look with Open eyes, try not to think about Richard Dawkins or Paul Myers being on "your team", they claim two different points and alot of claims are WITHOUT any BASIS, it is CLAIMS and the assumption they are RIGHT.
Says the militant apathist who cares more about style than substance. If you bothered looking at the facts instead of petulantly whining about how they're presented, you'd change your tune. But you won't. That's why you're constantly avoiding the subject and whining about irrelevancies like style.
And the sheep nod and agree, that is worrying. I seen Paul Myers been wrong several times, and none of the sheep point it out. For example he claimed that a Child molester and a pedophile was the same thing, a horrible misstake and very harmful to say, but Paul never corrected himself, nor did any of his followers say anything, they all AGREED with the false assertion he made.
How about you provide a link? I seem to recall that happening much, much differently than you tell it. But let me guess: You don't have time to talk about "trivialities" like evidence, hence you will provide none for your assertion.
Skeptics, maybe you should open your eyes a bit?
So sayeth the guy who wants us to close our eyes to facts and concentrate exclusively on style.
Or is that to scary? Paul Myers sound pretty loud and, oh what the word, Arrogant in his claims. Capital T in Truth does not only smell, but reeks in his blog.
PZ doesn't sugar-coat things, I agree. He's too strident for a lot of people. And yet, I've never seen anything from him which says he wouldn't change his mind given new evidence.
Again, you throw out the accusation, but you fail to back it up with anything specific. "Look at his blog, it's all capital-T Truth," you say, but this is the second post where you haven't offered even a single quote or link to support that claim. I counter with the equally-valid "look at his blog, it's all skeptical and scientific, with the basic underlying assumption of science, that all knowledge is tentative." As long as we're making completely unsupported, vague generalizations, then mine are as good as yours.
...And, actually, mine are better. Because I can Google, and after a minute or two I found this quote: "Brains are not reliable; they've been shaped by forces which, as has been clearly said, do not value Truth with a capital T. Scientists are all skeptics who do not trust their perceptions at all; we design experiments to challenge our assumptions, we measure everything multiple times in multiple ways, we get input from many people, we put our ideas out in public for criticism, we repeat experiments and observations over and over. We demand repeated and repeatable confirmation before we accept a conclusion, because our minds are not reliable."
And while this quote comes from Stephen Jay Gould, PZ sure cites it approvingly: "Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."
Ball's in your court.
Do you not think that when Atheist/Skeptics make claims, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, with with the same pious and certain arrogant way the Creationist crowd is, does it not seem a bit ironic that you sit there and point a finger at them?
No. First, atheism entails no claims; it is a response to a position, it is the statement that one is unconvinced by the claims for the existence of gods. Skepticism is similar, in that it is a method of rigorous doubt and application of critical thinking to positive claims. Our whole schtick is a lack of certainty--and, in fact, a recognition that there is no such thing as absolute certainty, especially not of the kind promoted by the religious and otherwise mystical. While there may be individual atheists or individual skeptics who make such irrationally-certain claims--there are some, no doubt--that's not something endemic or inherent to the atheist or skeptic positions.
Scientists make claims, sure, but the big thing separating science from religion and pseudoscience is that scientific claims are, by necessity and nature, backed up by evidence--and stated with the caveat that they may change if future evidence requires it. Religion and pseudoscience, on the other hand, make claims of absolute certainty based on faith instead of evidence, and do not change with new evidence or observations.
The best you've been able to present for your side seems to be a matter of semantics, not a "claim" in any sense of the word, and you still present it without quotes or links so we can examine it. Once again, specific examples or GTFO.
Someone seems to be doing a lot of projecting.
Projection? So now it is okay to refer to that filthy "Nazi Scummbag Freud"?
Weird, If I use the father of modern psychology and reference him, he is a "nazi douchbag" (he was Austrian by the way), but if you say something...... Weird.. Just Weird...
Are you saying that it's wrong to bet according to probabilities? That if a hypothesis a 99.999999% chance of being correct, you shouldn't bet on it?
Once again no, I pointed out that IT IS IRRELEVANT if you do not supply evidence.
And if you read PAUL MYERS BLOG and others, you will note that there is ALOT of assumtions of ALOT of various things which he speaks "Truth" of.
Pedophiles are Child Molestors is a brilliant example which I saw a couple of months ago.
Weird, If I use the father of modern psychology and reference him, he is a "nazi douchbag"
[citation needed], punk.
Also, is that aside about his nationality supposed to be some sort of counter against accusations of Nazism? Because I can think of at least one Austrian who very definitely was a Nazi... Can you guess who I'm thinking of?
(Disclaimer: I neither know nor care about Freud's politics. His "psychology" is bad enough.)
Gabe:
Projection? So now it is okay to refer to that filthy "Nazi Scummbag Freud"?
Weird, If I use the father of modern psychology and reference him, he is a "nazi douchbag" (he was Austrian by the way), but if you say something...... Weird.. Just Weird...
Get off the hallucinogens, pal. Drugs are not a gateway to higher understanding, no matter how much your postmodernist hippie commune says so.
You have absolutely no idea what's going on. The reason I pissed on your earlier efforts at psychobabble was because it was a blatantly transparent attempt at changing the subject.
The reason I'm calling you out on projection is because you're guilty of all the wrongdoing you baselessly accuse PZ of doing.
Once again no, I pointed out that IT IS IRRELEVANT if you do not supply evidence.
Translation: "ERV's don't exist because I do not wish to see them! Fossils do not exist! Dendrochronology does not exist!"
This accusation is rather rich coming from someone who's terrified to provide links to back his absurd claims.
And if you read PAUL MYERS BLOG and others, you will note that there is ALOT of assumtions of ALOT of various things which he speaks "Truth" of.
Translation: "I'm going to be deliberately vague in my accusations and never ever provide evidence in the form of a hotlink! Perceived style is infinitely more important than substance."
This is also rather ironic, since I seem to recall you using a lot of random capitalization.
Pedophiles are Child Molestors is a brilliant example which I saw a couple of months ago.
Which is why you're too terrified to provide a single, solitary link. Modern technology is amazing: I can smell the urine through my laptop's speakers.
You know, it's rather funny the way Gabe is obsessed with me. Apparently my earlier jokes about him are actually true: He bases his entire worldview on me.
"Bronze Dog doesn't know X, therefore my crazy unevidenced hypotheses about X are true!"
That's why he used so many arguments from ignorance: He really and truly believes that whatever I think must by definition be false, therefore by disagreeing with me, he is Automatically Right.
You know, like his subject changes on Wikipedia (which I didn't use as an authority).
And now, because I say evidence exists and that it matters, he says it doesn't. Because, as we've all established, Bronze Dog is Automatically Wrong, therefore Gabe is Automatically Right.
Irony at its best. I point out obvious fact (which you can confirm by a simple google search) but you claim its not true or deny it and demand that I am suppose to provide "evidence" that it X is even stated.
And you making all kinds of claims with NO evidence at all, denying facts of the world given by someone who knows the world, and yet, once again, I am wrong and need to get evidence to p`rove YOU wrong.... Wow, I wonder if there is any position you can take versus Bronze that does not demand "evidence" whatever for or against, Bronze on the other hand, can claim anything without any basis.
Here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/barbarism_in_poland.php
"Pedophiles are wretched people who abuse the helpless, and they get no sympathy from me. However, they are still people — sick people, damaged people, often abused people, sometimes psychopathic people. They have to be treated with due process and concern — we want to end the behavior, not the individual."
Funny enough, it seems that Paul Myers have EDITED this version, earlier he said Pedophiles and Child Molestors. Not anymore, maybe he saw his "mistake"? He certainly did not admit it, just silenty changed it... Strange strange.
Earlier comments debating this has also been removed it seems.
I guess you where right Bronze Dog, because Paul Myers removed what he said, he no longer said it, and anyone seeing it was just "dilusioned".
Right? Funny enough, even you pointed out that You remembered it, did you not?
Is it worth pointing out even with the edit, he claims Pedophiles are "wretcjed pèople", which is weird, as a Pedophile has done nothing nor harm anyone.
CHILD MOLESTORS on the other hand do, as they purse their lust. Pedophiles may be anyone from your grandma sitting in a chair never touched anyone to your father happening to "like" younger girls but, as it is illegal, never done annything about it.
But, as you say Bronze, Paul Myers is always right, lets bow now.
Idiot. If you want to prove he edited it, find a copy of the earlier version.
Oh, and not everyone sheepishly agreed with him.
Now, how about you try using hotlinks more often when you lie about what I say?
Oh, and Gabe, to put your trolling in a larger perspective: You've been stalling about answering basic questions about race since August. Do you ever get tired of running and waffling?
Back on the topic of editing: Trust me, Gabe, we don't trust your drug-addled memory of anything. You can't even comprehend and remember my position on anything over the course of hours. Pardon us if we're skeptical about your ability to accurately remember stuff from months ago.
I was just reading an article at your favourite "news and knowledge" stand, Wikipedia about this Eurofighter.
In the comment sections there is alot of anti-European sentiment I must say, and it is hard for me to not be biased, I mean, we know the F22 is the best, right? We rule and all that.
But all the real technical info I got show the damn Eurofighter to be an impressive piece of machine equal or better (in some senses) then our own F22.. Anyone know anything about this? There is lots of Anti-Americanism and eurotrash talks so I cant tell. Interesting stuff, personally I dont hold airplanes very high as with all the bombs and stuff we use now, war is horrible, not that any of you kids know about it, but no doubt someone here know about Aircraft?
Anyone know about this EF plane Versus our own?
Wow, Bronze, lets put oçit out straight then, Do you agree with Paul Myers that Pedophelia is equal to Child Molestors?
The QUOTE ABOVE I GAVE shows him saying that PEDOPHILES, the attraction to youth/children, is the same as a MOLESTOR: -> Pedophiles are wretched people who abuse the helpless..
Do you agree with Paul Myers or not?
I was just reading an article at your favourite "news and knowledge" stand, Wikipedia about this Eurofighter.
That's a lie. Wikipedia isn't anywhere near my favorite. I rarely look at it. Your World of Warcraft buddies from your postmodernist hippie commune made up that lie. We've been over this.
In the comment sections there is alot of anti-European sentiment I must say, and it is hard for me to not be biased, I mean, we know the F22 is the best, right? We rule and all that.
What do I care? Wikipedia has a lot of trolls and the best articles are those that provide good citations of good evidence. Here's a hint, Gabe: If there are a lot of [citation needed] tags in the article, it's a poor article.
But all the real technical info I got show the damn Eurofighter to be an impressive piece of machine equal or better (in some senses) then our own F22.. Anyone know anything about this? There is lots of Anti-Americanism and eurotrash talks so I cant tell. Interesting stuff, personally I dont hold airplanes very high as with all the bombs and stuff we use now, war is horrible, not that any of you kids know about it, but no doubt someone here know about Aircraft?
Sooooo... Why exactly did you change the subject to this triviality?
Oh well. Asking you to stick to a subject is like asking rocks to fall up. The correct thing to do, Gabe, is to look at the actual specs of the aircraft and base your conclusion on their actual, physical capabilities, instead of worshiping the irrelevant, nationalistic nonsense posted to Wikipedia comments.
I really don't understand your obsession with Wikipedia. I suggest you stop going to it if you can't look at the objective data that the good articles are supposed to cite.
Gabe: Do you agree with Paul Myers that Pedophelia is equal to Child Molestors?
No. Where the hell did you get that idea? Let me guess: Your WoW buddies made a Wikipedia article that said I did?
Bronze, You are the one referencing Wikipedia, therefore assumed you read it alot so I referenced it for you.
No, MY knowledge of the Eurofighter comes from THE TECHNICAL KNOLWEDGE OF THE AIRPLANE, not Wikipedia.
I pointed to the heated debate people had over it, as I was unaware of the nationalistic bullshit that was going on.
I asked if anyone HERE has knowledge about the planes, possible flown one or both of them, and know. You know, I travelled the world, excellent to ask ME about a nation I lived in and its culture, the same thing with Airplanes, if you know the details of a plane and flown it, you know how it is compared to another one, if you flown that too.
Oh.. You only believe in links.. Forgot.
So you disagree with Paul Myers.. Funny, I didn't see you say anything at his blog (and you didn't know about the article apparently).
So when Paul says anything wrong, you ignore it and pretend its okay? It is funny, when these people say something you agree with, you raise it to heaven, if you dont, you pretend it was never said... Or you gona say you dont have "time" for that type of thing, only writing on your own blog, right? Going to another blog makes it possible for others to disagree with you. I get it.
Playing more gotcha with irrelevances. Gabe, you are so fucking boring.
Seriously, you've been trolling this blog for about 4 months and have nothing to show for it.
Why don't you fuck off and die?
Bronze, You are the one referencing Wikipedia, therefore assumed you read it alot so I referenced it for you.
1. Liar. You're the one who's constantly whining about Wikipedia. You sound like you're married to it.
2. So, if a person links to ONE seemingly good Wikipedia article summarizing a scientific study, you conclude that they obsessively read it everyday? Someone here mistakes television stereotypes for reality.
3. I've told you repeatedly that I don't read Wikipedia very often. But because some comment section on Wikipedia says otherwise, you refuse to believe that.
So when Paul says anything wrong, you ignore it and pretend its okay? It is funny, when these people say something you agree with, you raise it to heaven, if you dont, you pretend it was never said... Or you gona say you dont have "time" for that type of thing, only writing on your own blog, right? Going to another blog makes it possible for others to disagree with you. I get it.
Did it ever occur to you that I don't need to spend every moment of every day obsessing over what PZ says? It's funny how you observe one instance of a behavior and extrapolate all sorts of insanity from it.
Here's a counter-example, by the way. Now you're going to say because I criticized him once I'm obsessed with him and obviously plan my day around his blog. Because you're only capable of understanding false dichotomies.
You do realize that some people can leave some battles to other people. I don't feel the need to personally take on every mistake.
Of course, you're not the sort to bother to understand why I believe anything. You're more interested in whining about irrelevancies.
Of course, for anyone who wasn't around for Gabe's earliest inanities, he argued that because Wikipedia is Automatically Wrong Because Only Dorks Read It, obviously all the statistical analysis performed by the Human Genome Project are null and void, even if they're recorded elsewhere: Wikipedia's wrongness infects scientific papers from a distance.
Gabe, instead of throwing up yet more smokescreen digressions how about you answer the very basic question you have been ducking for months:
Who do you mean when you say white?
If that's too hard for you, we can try to continue from what we know thus far. You have already made it clear that you do not include Iberians as white, so how about Italians?
I don't even know what Gabe's chain of logic is, anymore:
PZ makes a bone-headed mistake about pedophiles vs. child molesters, therefore evolution doesn't exist, therefore stay-at-home moms are all exactly like Peggy Bundy because Television Says So, therefore statistics is a Zionist conspiracy to suppress belief in unevidenced unicorns, therefore race is a metaphysical thing, therefore genetics is bunk because Stalin told the Soviet dictionaries to print so.
Is that about right?
By "white" Gabe means the decendants of homo heidelbergensis, duh!
Gabe, here's a very simple concept: You're a sucker for the fallacy of composition, and based on your belief in it, you presume without evidence that I believe in it:
I cite ONE Wikipedia article that I think is reasonably good. Therefore, you presume (without evidence) that I believe all Wikipedia articles are infallible.
Of course, you decide to perform that fallacy instead of say, pay attention to the fact that I was talking about the Human Genome Project. So, in your obsession with changing the subject, you start whining about Wikipedia, even though the subject was the genetic data gathered by a group of scientists. You also change the subject to me, as if that data magically disappears because I skimmed a piece of a Wikipedia article, as if you believe Wikipedia defines reality: Reality is whatever Wikipedia doesn't say it is.
And you never stopped to consider that I have standards independent of Wikipedia which I use to evaluate all sources of information.
On the Wikipedia irrelevancy, I'm cheering myself up by imagining what's going on at Gabe's computer:
He's just pounding his F5 key into submission to read the absolute latest comments by the postmodern nationalist chunk of Wikipedia's trolls about some fighter jet (as if nationality magically transforms test flight data), sitting on the edge of his seat, breathing hard, covered in sweat as he asks for my take on which jingoist faction is right.
And he's calling me obsessed because I'm not interested enough to see for myself where the article's writer(s) got the planes' specifications.
Bronze Dog, just admit you are wrong and know less. I Travelled the world, I seen things you could only dream of and will never see.
Is it just jealolusy or stupidity? Why deny the fact of my knowledge?
I pointed out how wrong you are, PER CAPITA INCOME IS IRRELEVANT to the fact of a Nations People living in a good society or not. But you do not understand, you never travelled, you never SEEN different nations and cultures, you do not understand, you watch some stallone movie and think its real.
Bronze, just educate yourself okay, it is important if you want intelligence. Now listen, I make one simple example for you, a really easy one that even you understand: A Nation Per Capita Income have 150 Billion Dollar.
According to you, that means they are the best and most prosperous in the world. NO, because you know nothing about it, it turns out that our fictional example has to pay 99% of that to buy a piece opf loaf and the rest goes to rent....
UNDERSTAND?
Of course not. Money is not relevant if you do not know the system you live in and the cost of that life, to say X has Y amount of money therefore they live better or worse then Me" is incredible stupid. It could turn out that the money "needed" for something that You consider important (say education) is not needed as Education is free and the best the planet ever seen, at the same time they may live Safer and more cultural superior lives to us americans.
You need ALL THE DATA to be able to get the point. You checking hte "stats" for X nation means nothing, you may get a general idea if it is very poor, but culture and other aspècts are highly important especially if you look on AVERAGE as there is huge difference ebtween nations with equal per capita income because of different cultures and systems.
There is a REASON we that are older are more intelligent Bronze, WE SEEN MORE and DONE MORE in our lifes and we are not afraid to question ourself, as you are. Maybe you grow up in a couple of years, I hope so, but look yourself in a mirror Now, and Try.
Gabe, in his postmodernist rambles:
Bronze Dog, just admit you are wrong and know less. I Travelled the world, I seen things you could only dream of and will never see.
You're really being stupid about this. This isn't about you against me, this is about you against objective scientific data. This is about you claiming to be superior to all scientists because you gathered some sloppy observations.
Is it just jealolusy or stupidity? Why deny the fact of my knowledge?
You still don't understand my position on the issue.
Which is better?: Someone who gathers observations in a lazy manner, or someone who gathers objective data? Every time, you say that your sloppy postmodernist hippie method is superior to the work of scientists.
I am utterly irrelevant to the argument, so I would appreciate you don't transparently change the subject, again.
So please, explain to me why your lazy, hazy method is superior to objective, scientific data.
According to you, that means they are the best and most prosperous in the world.
Liar. It's just one means of measuring it. Oh, and you obviously flunked high school economics. PCI accounts for inflation: If they have to spend 1,000,000 widget bucks for a loaf of bread, that means that their PCI is abysmally low because they have abysmally low buying power in terms of whichever unit you're measuring PCI in (usually in current US dollars).
I don't feel the need to quote the rest, since you're obviously making shit up in a desperate effort to save face.
Compare.
"There is a REASON we that are older are more intelligent..."
Contrast.
"...just educate yourself okay, it is important if you want intelligence. Now listen, I make one simple example for you, a really easy one that even you understand: A Nation Per Capita Income have 150 Billion Dollar."
How old are you? That reads like it was written in crayon.
By a parrot.
Or by Kent Hovind.
Hello. My name is Gabriel and I am a racist evangelist of jingoistic douchebaggery. As I write this I am 6 years old and my favorite color is white. Heil Hitler!
Gabe, how about you stop cowardly hiding from a simple question:
Who do you mean when you say white?
Gabe's flunked economics translated: The hyperinflation of one podunk nation, for example, changes the value of Year 2000 US dollars. Or sends tachyon waves that devalue 1980's US dollars.
Post a Comment